BlackBart wrote:What's a 'third rate star'?

Fallible wrote:Surely the Netherlands would only orbit round a first rate star..?

Wortfish wrote:Here is some encouraging news for Republicans allied to Mike Pence who now have a healthy majority in the Senate (53-47) that helps confirm the appointment of judges, among other responsibilities:

Many Teachers Still Avoid Teaching Evolution or Teach Creationism: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatche ... eationism/

Those same surveys show that about 15% are teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution. And they continue to get away with it because no one complains. This is why I have long encouraged parents with children in public schools, or just local science advocates, use Freedom of Information Act requests to get the materials being used in the science courses there. You have a right to see all supplemental materials being used, whether it’s handouts or movies or whatever else. Only when it becomes known that it’s being taught can we go in and file legal challenges.

So it is not enough to include evolution in state science standards, textbooks and local curricula. To ensure students learn about evolution, we first need teachers who have a confident grasp of evolutionary biology. It is a concern that only about half of the high school biology teachers surveyed held a bachelor’s degree in biology and only around 40% had taken a course specifically in evolution. Many states are incentivizing science teachers to achieve more rigorous qualifications, but it will take time to undo decades — generations even — of evolution avoidance.

LucidFlight wrote:Does that mean that students learn about both, or do they just learn creationism instead of ToE? Do they have different career days for the students of creationism?

Calilasseia wrote:
Hilarious to see you post a link to a blog that advocates taking creationists to court when they try to corrupt the education system with their mythology based bullshit. Or did you think no one would chase up that link? Which includes this paragraph

Wortfish wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:Does that mean that students learn about both, or do they just learn creationism instead of ToE? Do they have different career days for the students of creationism?

I don't know. But I would issue a health warning: "Scientists claim that the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life BUT there are major areas that have not been settled and which lend weight to rational skepticism of the theory."

1. The ToE has not explained the emergence of the eukaryotic cell.

2. The ToE has not explained the emergence of multicellularity.

3. The ToE has not explained the emergence of sexual reproduction.

4. The ToE has not explained the emergence of metazoan phyla and body plans in the Cambrian.

5. The ToE has not explained the emergence of the tetrapod limb.

These major gaps should be presented.

Wortfish wrote:
2. The ToE has not explained the emergence of multicellularity.

Wortfish wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:Does that mean that students learn about both, or do they just learn creationism instead of ToE? Do they have different career days for the students of creationism?

I don't know. But I would issue a health warning: "Scientists claim that the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life BUT there are major areas that have not been settled and which lend weight to rational skepticism of the theory."

1. The ToE has not explained the emergence of the eukaryotic cell.

2. The ToE has not explained the emergence of multicellularity.

3. The ToE has not explained the emergence of sexual reproduction.

4. The ToE has not explained the emergence of metazoan phyla and body plans in the Cambrian.

5. The ToE has not explained the emergence of the tetrapod limb.

These major gaps should be presented.

BlackBart wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:Does that mean that students learn about both, or do they just learn creationism instead of ToE? Do they have different career days for the students of creationism?

I don't know. But I would issue a health warning: "Scientists claim that the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life BUT there are major areas that have not been settled and which lend weight to rational skepticism of the theory."

1. The ToE has not explained the emergence of the eukaryotic cell.

2. The ToE has not explained the emergence of multicellularity.

3. The ToE has not explained the emergence of sexual reproduction.

4. The ToE has not explained the emergence of metazoan phyla and body plans in the Cambrian.

5. The ToE has not explained the emergence of the tetrapod limb.

These major gaps should be presented.

OK. You got us. Fairies magicked them there.

Wortfish wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:Does that mean that students learn about both, or do they just learn creationism instead of ToE? Do they have different career days for the students of creationism?

I don't know. But I would issue a health warning: "Scientists claim that the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life BUT there are major areas that have not been settled and which lend weight to rational skepticism of the theory."

1. The ToE has not explained the emergence of the eukaryotic cell.

2. The ToE has not explained the emergence of multicellularity.

3. The ToE has not explained the emergence of sexual reproduction.

4. The ToE has not explained the emergence of metazoan phyla and body plans in the Cambrian.

5. The ToE has not explained the emergence of the tetrapod limb.

These major gaps should be presented.

OK. You got us. Fairies magicked them there.

That may end up being accepted as the default explanation when all possible explanations have been exhausted.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I see you don't know what 'default' means. Especially since on this particular topic you have no idea what the possible explanations are.

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I see you don't know what 'default' means. Especially since on this particular topic you have no idea what the possible explanations are.

By default I mean revert back to the original explanation of divine creation. We may need to accept that looking for alternatives has been a futile and unproductive waste of time when the answer was obvious.